Tag:

Trust

Anyway Build

by Ron Potter March 16, 2017

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway.

Including your reputation. I was once fired by a client because he believed I was dishonest and had lied. I was devastated. I spent several weeks wondering if I had been a fraud. Had all the building of a consulting business and reputation been a fraud? The title of the book I had written was Trust Me. Had I been fooling myself along with others?

After several weeks of soul searching my actions and memory, I just couldn’t come up with anything I had done to deserve the label so I decided to keep moving toward the future but I knew I was doing so feeling much more vulnerable that I had in the past. It took a while but I began to get my footing back and I continued to move forward. However, this client was a member of a very large global company and my reputation had certainly been dented.

A few years later, this client reached out to me and let me know that he had been misinformed and even deceived in believing that I had done something dishonorable. He has continued to hire me as a trusted consultant for many years since. I feel very fortunate for how this story turned out in my life but it could have easily been left unresolved and unfortunately, there are often lasting consequences.

It’s critically important that we are self-aware and self-reflective, constantly judging our actions. But sometimes our reputations and future are damaged through unrelated or untrue events. Don’t stop building. When you stop growing you wither very rapidly. Grow. Build. It gives us life.

Headline from a wonderful little book titled Anyway by Kent Keith

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: People We Think Need Changing are Pretty Good the Way They Are

by Ron Potter March 13, 2017

I love this statement by Farson: “Business and industry spend billions of dollars each year to train, encourage, and reward their employees – and to install security systems.”

I remember a statement by Steven Covey (author of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People) that he could always tell the level of trust in an organization by how many rules and systems they had in place. The more the rules, the less the trust. I have also found this to be true. To me, the apex of this is when every member of the top leadership team is expected to know every detail about their operation. It’s stated as an indication of competency but in reality, it’s an indication of lack of trust.

Farson further elaborates by saying, “Situations, more than individuals, are what produce the difficulties, even though it almost always looks as if it is individuals who are fouling up. The better managers try to fix situations, not people, by making structural changes in their organizations.”

In addition to the structural changes, my experience is that building trust must be a regular focus of leadership teams. Like any conditioning, if you’re not constantly working on trust, it slowly erodes. And like any erosion, at some point, the dam breaks and it’s completely washed away.

Farson makes the point that most employees are trying to do the best they can. I agree. People really want to be productive, successful, valued, encouraged, and encouraging. It’s usually the system, structure, leadership, and lack of trust that discourages them from doing their best.

One of his closing statements in this section is, “When we build a team of people, we may, at the outset, wish that its members were different from what they are—we think this one might be too shy, that one too boisterous, another too cerebral, and so on. But once the team is built and begins working together, something pleasantly surprising happens. Instead of continuing to want to change these people, all those characteristics that may have concerned us at the outset become qualities we come to appreciate as simply being part of the way these people are. Absurdly, we find that we really wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Diversity is the key to great teams. But not diversity alone. It’s when the diversity is honored, trusted and appreciated that makes great teams. How much are you working at honoring, trusting and appreciating your teammates?

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous blog posts about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

0 comments

Short Book Reviews

The Law

by Ron Potter January 3, 2017

Ron’s Short Review: The Law was originally published in French in 1850 by Frederic Bastiat. It was written two years after the third French Revolution of 1848. Great study in what Bastia calls “Plunder” both illegal and legal. I believe his words can be applied to any form of artificial structure, be it government or corporations. Lots of lessons to be learned.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

A Legacy of Trust

by Ron Potter December 5, 2016

Pressure and mounting fear can drive you away from the two pillars of great leadership—humility and endurance—in order to succeed in the short run, but it will not last or create trust. It will only drive a wedge between you and the true success you can have as a leader who focuses on the two pillars and the other attributes.

Once again we want to remind you of the power contained in these qualities—and how the opposite qualities can destroy the great person you want to become and the great organization you want to lead.

We all have the ability to adapt these attributes to our particular leadership styles. You have the ability to start today. Why wait any longer?

Grasping leadership greatness starts by letting go.

Letting go is not a one-time deal. You must do it again and again and again.

Many of the most enduring ideas and values in our lives today have been shaped and molded by modern-day “blacksmiths.” Ancient or modern, the principles are the same: The blacksmith heats the iron at the forge, shapes it on his anvil, and cools it in the water.

The blacksmith heats the metal to prepare it for change. The trusted leader warms people to change through humility and compassion. The blacksmith hammers the metal to form a new shape. The trusted leader shapes an organization through commitment and focus. The blacksmith cools the metal to “settle” its strength. The trusted leader uses peacemaking to give the changed organization meaning and understanding. The forged metal, once cooled, becomes the powerful sword, the productive plow, or the beautiful wrought-iron gate.

By understanding the elements that build and destroy trust, effective leaders shape strong and productive organizations:

At the end of the same session when Jesus shared his Beatitudes with his followers—the ideas on which the eight attributes are based—he told an interesting story. He said that if his team members would put what he had taught them into practice, their lives would be like a man who built his house on a solid rock foundation. No matter what kind of storm hit, he promised that the house would stand. But if these men did not pay attention to the truth he shared, their lives would be like the man who built his house on a foundation of shifting sand. When the storm hit that house, it would crumble and wash away.

We believe the eight attributes will have that kind of effect on you. Allow them to permeate you from the inside out, and you will have a career—and a life—built on solid rock. You will be known as a person who can say with clear-eyed conviction, “Trust me.”

And others will follow.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Individuals are Almost Indestructible, but Organizations are Very Fragile

by Ron Potter November 3, 2016

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous blogs about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

The paragraph in this chapter that rang true for me says, “Individuals are very strong, but organizations are not. Part of the reason why we don’t recognize the vulnerability of organization is that we have a hard time believing that the relationships which make them work are real. Even psychologists sometimes think of organizations as simply collections of individuals. But relationships – the bonds between people – are very real, and they have a life of their own. To a great extent they determine the behavior of an organization and the people within it.”

In my leadership book, Trust Me I talk about a couple of leaders:

These two leaders developed a very tight and trusting relationship with each member of their teams. Everyone talked of them as “great” leaders and the kind of bosses for whom employees would do anything. However, these two leaders would send one or more of their direct-reports off on a mission that was bound to conflict with a similar mission of another direct-report. The leaders, however, would never make any effort to help the direct-reports reconcile the conflicts. They would just let them bang against one another until one was victorious—Newton’s Cradle.

These leaders assumed the people who worked for them were strong and resilient, which indeed they were, but they had no sense that the relationship between the people was what actually created the company and culture. Their effort often destroyed relationships.

This issue also speaks to the concept of developing and growing teams. There is a model of team development that says teams move from Centralized to Transitional to Partnering and finally Highly Empowered: Self-Directed teams. The very first step from Centralized to Transitional speaks of this issue. Centralized teams can be viewed in the traditional hub and spoke model. The leader is the hub in the middle with a spoke extending out to each of the direct reports. However, there is no connection between the direct reports. As teams get better and better the connection between the team members becomes stronger, more reliable and more trusted until finally the team is functioning well as a single unit.

Trusting relationships are the key. If you’re not building TEAM, you’re not being a great leader.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: The Person or Group that Presents the Problem

by Ron Potter October 10, 2016

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous posts about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with one of the better known “Turn Around” companies. A Turn Around company is not even invited to the table until things are in dire straits. The hiring company, in spite of their best efforts is facing bankruptcy or takeover in a relative short period of time. The Turn Around company is paid very well to turn things around is a relative short period of time to avoid the tragedy.

I asked the consultant to explain their process to me to see what they do differently than what the management has already tried. Here is the outline presented:

Start with the bottom of the organization, the people who are closest to the problem.

They ask the people who are closest to the problem to come up with the proposal to fix the problem and them give them the authority and accountability to fix it.

Teach the Leaders of the Organization how to say “yes”

While the people closest to the problem are preparing the proposal the consultant is teaching the leaders of the organization to nod their heads in affirmation and say yes to the proposal. They’re teaching them to grant authority and accountability to those who will accomplish the work

All of that made sense to me but then I asked what they did with middle management. His response was “We ignore them.” They felt that middle managers just got in the way of a quick turn around and they didn’t have the time or energy to deal with them, overcome their loss of control or educate them in good management practices. They simply ignored them.

Our author makes another profound observation in this section of the book when he says “Participative management depends on trusting the group. Most managers simply don’t have that confidence and can’t take the time to develop the trust.” To me, this was the key. If the leaders and managers of the company had taken the time and made the effort to develop trust in their groups, they would have avoided the need for a Turn Around company to save them.

Leaders that build trust and have trust in their organizations are very different from the top-down, management and control types of leaders. Which are you? Will you need that Turn Around company someday? I trust not.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

Trust and Integrity

by Ron Potter May 9, 2016

To have a great organization, integrity must be widespread. It won’t do to be a saintly leader of highest integrity if the rest of the team consists of liars, backbiters, and thieves. Integrity must exist from top to bottom.
As leader, you are the key. If you are a person of integrity, you will be trusted, and “trust has been shown to be the most significant predictor of individuals’ satisfaction with their organization.”
Integrity and trust are inseparable—one cannot exist without the other. According to Charles O’Reilly and Karlene Roberts,

Leaders who build trusting relationships within their team are willing to consider alternative viewpoints and to make use of other people’s expertise and abilities. They feel comfortable with the group and are willing to let others exercise influence over group decisions. In contrast, managers in a distrustful environment often take a self-protective posture. They’re directive and hold tight the reins of power. Those who work for such managers are likely to pass the distrust on by withholding and distorting information.

In a research study several groups of business executives were asked to be involved in a role-playing exercise. The groups were given identical factual information about a difficult policy decision, and then they were asked to solve a problem related to that decision. Half of the groups were briefed to expect trusting behavior from the members of their group; the other half were told to expect untrusting behavior (“You cannot openly express feelings or differences with members of your group”).
After thirty minutes of discussion, each group member as well as those who had observed the role playing completed a questionnaire. The responses were in harmony with each other: The discussions among members in the high-trust group were significantly more positive than the discussions among members of the low-trust group. In fact, people in the low-trust group who tried to be open and honest were virtually ignored. Hostility was caused by a mere suggestion, and it quickly spread throughout the group. The people in the low-trust groups realized that the lack of trust kept them from high achievement. They did not feel free to be vulnerable due to the actions and rejection of other group members.
Here are some findings on the high-trust group:

Members were more open about their feelings.
Members experienced greater clarity of thinking.
Members searched for more alternative courses of action.
Members reported greater levels of mutual influence on outcomes.

The high-trust group opened the gate of personal vulnerability, and the result was a better team and a model of integrity-based leadership.
When people do not trust one another, it is difficult for the organization to succeed and for the people within the organization to feel completely fulfilled. People who feel trusted and who trust their leaders are more satisfied, and their work environment is less stressful. There exists a feeling of openness and confidence and a greater ability for people to believe they can take risks.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

A Life of Integrity

by Ron Potter April 18, 2016

Before Peter Parker—the superhero Spider-Man—went public with his newfound superpowers, he had a heart-to-heart conversation with his Uncle Ben. Sitting in the car, Uncle Ben admonished, “These are the years when a man becomes the man he’s going to be for the rest of his life. Just be careful who you change into. You’re feeling this great power, and with great power comes great responsibility.”

Although these are fictional characters, Uncle Ben’s advice was sound: Be careful what you become.

Stephen Covey’s insights on staying consistent to a vision are well known but deserve repetition. He writes:

[To] “begin with the end in mind” is to begin today with the image, picture, or paradigm of the end of your life as your frame of reference or the criterion by which everything else is examined.… By keeping that end clearly in mind, you can make certain that whatever you do on any particular day does not violate criteria you have defined as supremely important, and that each day of your life contributes in a meaningful way to the vision you have of your life as a whole.

Peter Drucker describes the “mirror test” in which leaders make sure that the person they see in the mirror in the morning is the kind of person they want to be, the kind of person they can respect and believe in. If there is a lack of consistency between our public and private lives, then eventually we will be unable to manage the divide. Integrity will crumble. We read of far too many leaders who have fallen as the truth about their private lives has emerged.

Living a “whole” life means doing things in a way that is consistent with our values and vision. It means standing firm on tough issues and making difficult choices. In a word, it means integrity. Here are three ways to reach that goal.

Act boldly

Bold acts issue from a person who has unshakable confidence. That confidence comes from knowing the principles that guide your life and knowing that these principles will lead to integrity.

It is important to know the values and principles that drive your behavior. Only then will you have the confidence to act boldly in spite of peer pressure or prevailing opinions.

Leaders who want a total quality life seek to act boldly when faced with compromising decisions and actions. They have no fear because they fall back on their values and their deep need to live a life of integrity and trust.

Exhibit a great attitude

Another path to integrity as a “whole” existence is to approach all you do with a joyful, positive, uplifting mind-set. The pursuit of integrity requires what is best and noble in your character. You can’t afford the defeating, polluting influence of a negative outlook.

Performance specialist Dr. Bob Rotella writes about golf, yet his insights translate to leadership as well: “Standing on the tee and thinking about your drive going to the target doesn’t guarantee that it will go there. It only enhances the chances. [By contrast] Negative thinking is almost 100 percent effective.”

To succeed in business or any other challenge, we must maintain a great attitude. No matter what the obstacle or opposition, successful leaders believe they can overcome and win the battle. Their mind-set influences their performance, and there is no substitute for a positive outlook.

Understandably, it is hard to have a positive perspective when we are weighed down by doubts about our own character. When we’re one person in the mirror and another person to our employees, we’re divided and out of sync. When we—or others—question our integrity, it’s difficult to not allow doubt to overshadow our attitude and performance.

Develop trust

Integrity and trust are interwoven like two strands in a tightly wound cord. It’s really impossible to have one quality without the other. How do you become a person others trust?

In the organizational setting in particular, trustworthiness is based on both character—what you are—and competence—how well you do what you do. It is quite possible to have one quality and not the other. If you have confidence in my character but consider me woefully incompetent at my job, you may like me but not trust me.

Trustworthy people are dependable and consistent; their actions and lifestyles set an example of integrity and competence.

Building trust takes time. We can trust others and gain their trust when certain qualities are present, but we also need to remember that years of baggage associated with our personal lives, our leadership style, and how we do things can get in the way. Therefore, patience and understanding become necessary allies as we sort through our lives and seek to trust others.

0 comments

Blog Team

Aristotle Strikes Again

by Ron Potter March 24, 2016

photo-1431540015161-0bf868a2d407

As reported in the New York Times recently, Google embarked on an effort to build the perfect team. And as Google would be prone to do, they began to collect data in search of a pattern. As one participant stated, if anyone is good at recognizing patterns it’s Google. I don’t think there’s any argument about that.

However, after collecting data on hundreds of teams the first problem they ran into is that they couldn’t find a pattern. Or more accurately they found too many patterns which is just as much of a problem as finding none at all. So the search continued.

In the end they did find two very interesting correlations that seemed to be present on every good team. Not surprisingly those two elements were trust and respect. The two of them together formed an environment that has been labeled ‘psychological safety.’ If the team members feel psychologically safe because trust and respect has been built, the team will become a high performing team. (Tweet this)

Another pattern that began to emerge however was the productivity of these teams over multiple problems and projects. Teams that fell short on psychological safety didn’t seem to perform well at any kind of problem. Conversely, teams that exhibited psychological safety seemed to perform well no matter the nature of the problem. So the one element that people most often assume to be a needed ingredient, subject matter experts, didn’t seem to make any difference if there was no trust or respect.

Now, here’s the part I enjoyed. The internal name for the effort was called the Aristotle Project. One of the foundational structures that I always introduce to the teams I work with is Aristotle’s Levels of Happiness. The fourth and highest level describes the five things needed for great team work. In Aristotle’s word they include: Truth, Love, Purpose, Beauty and Unity. Every team needs a purpose but to accomplish that purpose they must be able to share and speak the truth, do it in a loving respectful way, in the most beautiful and elegant form possible and finally reaching a commitment of unity. Without those elements a psychologically safe environment doesn’t exist.

Although I’m glad they actually made the effort, had they simply started with what Aristotle knew they could have saved a lot of effort in figuring out what makes great teams.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Giving Up Management Techniques

by Ron Potter February 25, 2016

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous blogs about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

Chapter 4 is titled: “Once You Find a Management Technique that Works, Give it Up”.

Farson states “The most obvious reason is that any management technique loses its power when it becomes evident that it is a technique.”

Technique is not a bad thing in and of itself. One definition states “a skillful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.” We actually spend most of our lives and certainly most of our business lives figuring out skillful and efficient ways of doing things. And, for the most part, we get paid and promoted for getting even more skillful and efficient at doing things over time. But note that it’s about doing things.

You might remember from our last blog that we need to relate to each other as Human Beings, not Human Doings. Getting skillful and efficient at doing things is evaluated differently than being skillful and efficient at “doing” human beings. Human beings require empathy, trust and patience and that will vary with each person. Farson says “It is the ability to meet each situation armed not with a battery of techniques but with openness that permits a genuine response.” Genuine response is the key. People immediately notice if you’re using a technique on them vs being genuine. People know!

Reciprocity Rule. As stated by Farson:

One of the most useful ideas to remember is what we might call the “reciprocity rule” of human behavior: that over time, people come to share, reciprocally, similar attitudes toward each other.

That is, if I have a low opinion of you, then while you may for a time hold a high opinion of me, it is unlikely that your high opinion will persist. Eventually you will come to feel about me the way I feel about you.

We believe we can acquire techniques that will hide our true feelings about people and enable us to convey an image of ourselves which they will respect, even though we do not respect them. (Sounds like politicians to me)

Ultimately, people discover who we are and come to regard us as we regard them. If we genuinely respect our colleagues and employees, those feelings will be communicated without the need for artifice or technique. And they will be reciprocated.

Sounds a lot like something referred to as the Golden Rule. Do onto others…..

Being a leader is being genuine. There’s an old line that says “The key is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.” Guess what, you can’t fake it. If you want to lead people you must be genuine. You must look on them as human beings’ worthy of respect. It’s the only thing that creates leaders that people want to follow.

0 comments

Blog Qualities of a Caring Leader Trust Me

Qualities of a Caring Leader: Concern

by Ron Potter December 28, 2015

Over the next few weeks, our Trust Me posts will explore the qualities of a caring leader. We explored the first quality – Understanding here. Today we look at the second quality – Concern.

One of my favorite old adages says “I don’t care how much you know until I know how much you care.” Remember, an old adage hangs around for hundreds of years because it is solidly true.

Many leaders believe they must completely separate their work life from their personal life. Many of them will say, “I don’t dare get too close to these people because I won’t be able to be objective if I need to give them critical feedback.”

But people follow leaders who care. People know they care, and they develop trust. If you are a caring, honestly challenging leader, people will follow you through the tough course of business ups and downs.

I have seen great leaders demonstrate care. They don’t just know the members of their team, they help them by taking action to improve their lives or set them on a fresh course. When a leader cares about their team, the team cares for one another as well.

I often run an exercise with my clients that I call “Human Beings, not Human Doings.” The point of the exercise is that when we relate to each other based entirely on what we “do”, things can get off base. Maybe something wasn’t done right or on time or to the standards that were expected and we start to assign that disappointment to the person responsible for the work. But when we begin to understand and relate to who people “are”, not just what they do, we often begin to understand people better. We begin to care. Under caring circumstances we begin to help each other and the team to improve our overall performance. Caring produces results.

2 comments

Blog Culture

Forcing Trust too Quickly

by Ron Potter December 24, 2015

I’ve seen the full spectrum through the years of those who trust until the trust is broken (the end of the spectrum that I sit on) and those who say no trust granted until it’s earned.

A recent Harvard Business Review, Management Tip of the Day listed “3 Mistakes to Avoid When Taking Over a Team.” The third tip was “Attempting to force trust too quickly. Until team members have had time to see how you handle uncomfortable topics too much candor will do more harm than good. Let trust build over time.” The word candor in the middle of that sentence caught my eye.

It’s not that you’re not trusting or offering trust, but don’t assume candor will be accepted with trust and appreciation until you’ve gained some trust. While I know this is sound advice and I usually follow it myself, I do remember one major incident where I tripped over this one.

I had been working in couple of different functional areas for a Fortune 200 company. An internal candidate had recently been promoted to VP of HR and with the recommendation of a few other corporate leaders, I was making an effort to get acquainted. During one of my first conversations with her she asked if I had any feedback for her, knowing that I had been working in the company for a while and knew of her in her previous role.

I remembered distinctly that I had this little twinge of doubt before I answered. Let me take the time and space right here to say “Always pay attention to that little twinge of doubt!”

When she made the initial request for feedback I came back with some general platitudes about working into the new position even though she was a known quantity in the corporation. She pressed for more.

While my twinge was turning into more of a twitch, she pursued with what felt like genuine sincerity about wanting feedback. So, in spite of that twitch now turning into a pit, I shared a couple of things that I had observed about her leadership skills. In all honesty I didn’t really think they were that much of an unknown to her and I also didn’t believe they were particularly harsh and damaging. But, you can see the rest of the story coming. The look on her face sent a very firm message that she didn’t care for that feedback and the meeting quickly ended.

My entire worth when working with a client is being able to share feedback with clients and I’ve discussed much more damaging feedback than I actually shared at that moment. But, I ALWAYS develop trust with my client first before sharing meaningful feedback. Well, almost always.

Always build trust first. No matter which end of the spectrum you’re on, always build the trust first before bringing in too much candor.

0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts